Greg Walker's The Politicsof Performance in Early Renaissance
Drama is a welcome addition to the critical material focusing on Henrician
and later Tudor drama. Concentrating on a number of major great hall plays
-- court interludes -- Walker carefully examines the way in which the
performances both reflect the agendas of the patrons and also often provide
counsel not always in line with apparently predictable currents within
the household, royal or noble. Playwrights, like candid courtiers, could
offer objective advice; the wise prince could accept or reject the embedded
homilies, but would surround himself with toadies at his peril -- the
yes-man is inherently more useless (and even more dangerous) than the
loyal servant who offers potentially uncomfortable lessons for the good
of the state. Once these plays appeared outside the hall (whether or not
the lines were altered) the political sub-text could well become less
obvious--possibly, even, invisible. Yet, as Walker convincingly demonstrates,
politics and courtly drama of the period were inseparable, and the modern
reader wishing to come to terms with the genre must take into full account
the socio-political context. Indeed, this volume is not simply a significant
contribution to literary/dramatic criticism but also to historical study;
the scholarship is evidently considerable and meticulous, and the documentation
throughout is substantial.

Following an Introduction in which Walker sets his own stage, as it were,
and raises pertinent questions, e.g. regarding the nature of the audience
within and beyond the princely hall, textual changes, the use of playbooks,
etc., he moves to a consideration in Chapter I of the emergence and nature
of printed copies, taking into account, for instance, the role of the
printer (including John Rastell, et al.), the evolution of play-texts,
the inclusion of stage directions, the audience/market for printed texts,
the size of runs, the relationship between writer and printer, playing
companies, touring (here we have the phenomenon of high art in a popular
setting), and the results of a growing body of printed work deriving from
the pre-playhouse period and, clearly, from other than playhouse origins.
As Walker observes, printing established the great hall drama as the dominant
mode in the sixteenth century; even the nature of the playing space had
a lasting effect, and it is well to remember that the works with which
Shakespeare became acquainted in London come solidly out of the tradition
which is Walker's central concern.

The second chapter explores at some length the notion of the playwright's
role as counsellor (rather than mere entertainer) and the way in which
dramas (with their political sub-texts) could support or subvert princely
agendas and provide a stimulus for debate of major issues. The court of
Henry VIII is an obvious case in point: the prince must be seen to entertain
wise counsel--that was part of the expected image, and plays could be,
in part, crucial elements in courtly spectacle and propaganda. In the
end, the advice that the dramatist might proffer is ultimately in the
realm of negotiation rather than rebuke: the adversarial role is neither
functional nor tolerable. Thus, it is the subtleties which the modern
critic must engage--in full possession of sufficient historical detail.

Walker's treatment (in Chapter 3) of John Heywood follows logically,
and outlines his career from the Henrician to the early Elizabethan years;
Heywood, as a dissenter in the face of ecclesiastical and theological
reform, while diplomatically advocating his own conservative views in
his dramas, finally chose to leave England in 1564. In explaining both
Heywood's role and the function of his dramas within the fluctuations
of Henrician, Marian, and later policy, Walker examines in detail, with
generous provision of examples, Witty and Witless, The Pardoner and
the Friar (linkages to the Reformation Parliament (1529) and the issue
of royal supremacy are addressed), The Play of Love (which clearly
suggests resolution of contentious issues--Wolsey figures here--rather
than confrontation), The Play of the Weather (reflecting Henry
VIII's determination to assert independent judgment c.1529/30), The
Four PP (again taking up the matter of supremacy and the desirability
of the church moving internally towards reform), and, briefly, the now
lost The Parts of Man (a dialogue between Will and Reason), written
for Thomas Cranmer. In turning, towards the end of the chapter, to the
political implications of publication (Heywood's interludes were published
by William Rastell in 1533/34) Walker's comparison between Heywood and
Thomas More is particularly instructive in distinguishing the former's
rather more diplomatic, negotiated approach, despite conservative sentiments
which he shared with Henry's more assertive and hence more vulnerable
Lord Chancellor. Walker's extensive discussion of the political context
as he proceeds through these texts is by no means tangential; it is as
absolutely to the point as it is sure-footed, lucid, and engaging.

The fourth chapter takes the reader north to consider a household drama
of the Scottish court; Sir David Lindsay's Ane Satyre of the Thrie
Estatis, an interlude given first for James V in 1540 (a production
to which there is no text but of which there is clear and detailed evidence
in a letter from Sir William Eure to Thomas Cromwell), later at Castle
Hill, Cupar, Fifeshire in 1552, and then, with the Regent, Dowager Queen
Mary of Guise in attendance, at Greenside Playfield, Calton Hill, Edinburgh
in 1554. Walker clearly outlines Lindsay's career and his long relationship
(later as Snowden Herald and Lyon King of Arms) with James V, pointing
out that Lindsay was perfectly positioned, as a trusted courtier/counsellor,
to give advice to the monarch: to give advice was a duty, in fact. The
death of the king in 1543 left Lindsay not only with personal sadness
but the problem of how to revise and readdress The Thrie Estatis
in the context of a somewhat courtly vacuum. Walker notes clearly Lindsay's
reformist tendencies and goes on to discuss the 1540 play in the light
of Eure's letter, the involvement of religious questions within the drama,
reformist politics at James' court, the way in which Lindsay approached
the concept of the ideal king within the play, both praising and instructing
the real monarch and providing encouragement to seek reforms from the
Bishop of Glasgow. He then turns to a detailed consideration of the 1552
and 1554 productions, for which texts survive, and which involve a two-part
drama, divided by a short interlude, looking at a) a court and the fortunes
of a youthful monarch, and b) a meeting of the Scottish Three Estates
convened to debate problems revealed in the first part of the play. Once
more Walker not only considers the text itself and the differences between
it and the 1540 version but also the political implications of performing
such a text--clearly, while a king might be swayed, advice is more difficult
to offer in a less stable regency environment. Although a reformist, both
in terms of religious and social issues--his roles of the Pauper and John
are crucial in the later text--Lindsay was less radical, Walker notes,
than is sometimes assumed.

Chapter 5 returns the reader to England and to the work of the famous--and
in some quarters, infamous--Nicholas Udall. Following a cogent discussion
of Udall's career (his alleged ill treatment of pupils as Head at Eton
can only prompt anger and dismay, at best) and his reformist views (which
not surprisingly cost Udall his Windsor canonry and his rectory at Colborne,
on the Isle of Wight, though not his ability to write plays for the Marian
court), Walker turns to Udall's Respublica, which he sees as a
"political morality" in the same light as Lindsay's The Thrice Estatis
and Skelton's Magnyfycence, though here the major character is
female and, notes Walker, reflects the state rather than a singular prince.
He looks at the plot, the potential occasions for the play, and then the
issues which infuse it, regarding it as far more specific to its historical
context than is generally imagined, particularly in terms of the endemic
economic hardship to which England at the time was subjected. Here is
a head of state duped by boastful Avarice in a play with topical (if veiled)
references to greedy courtiers, rampant self-interest, and, in Walker's
view, abuse of the church (e.g. the results of the seizure of ecclesiastical
properties, a legacy from earlier reigns). The drama suits the Tudor imperative,
and the last acts in particular veer towards reform of church and state,
advocating a reformed Edwardian solution and not a return to a pre-Henrician
status; it is a clear example of the household play and the function of
the playwright as counsellor, and the issue of the ruler's gender is also
an issue --astutely addressed.

The final drama selected for discussion (in Chapter 6)--here in the light,
particularly, of the politics of marriage and the related issues of succession
(which obsessed many a courtier/subject for literally the entirety of
Elizabeth's reign)--is the tragedy Gorbuduc. Performed during the
1561/62 Christmas season during the revels of the Inns of Court, Thomas
Sackville and Thomas Norton's famous play was given again, together with
a masque, at Whitehall for the queen. At hand for Walker, now, is a first-hand
account of the early performance, putting the play and its legal/courtly
audience into greater perspective and allowing comparison with the printed
texts of 1565 and 1570. Walker offers succinct though necessary comments
about the co-authors, outlines the political milieu, and then discusses
the plot of the play which, of course, invites thoughts of Shakespeare's
King Lear and which offers a number of potential firsts: as an
English two-act verse tragedy, as an English imitation of Senecan tragedy,
as an English drama employing blank verse, and as an English drama involving
dumb-shows before its acts. But Walker's salient point is that quite apart
from the play's importance for these reasons, the piece quite clearly
demonstrates that it follows the great hall tradition of dramas which
offer advice to the head of the court. Walker reflects on Gorboduc
in view of the discussions about succession and marriage and then goes
on to consider the "eye witness" account in the papers of Robert Beale
(Yelverton Papers, British Library), specifically those involving Robert
Dudley (a potential match for the queen), a view which, for instance,
adds to an understanding of actions as performed and suggests a re-interpretation,
for example, of the second dumb show, the character of Fergus, and so
on. Walker goes on to outline the situation of Dudley and the possibility
of a link between the queen and the king of Sweden. Of particular interest
is the difference between the play as apparently performed and as later
printed, with some material--expressly related to the question of marriage--deleted
and replaced by a declaration of the necessity for the provision of sound
advice. Clearly, even in the altered version, a courtly sub-text is visible
to those with the contextual knowledge, even if some of the specifics
have been expunged. The politics of performance and publication may be
different, as Walker argues: the politics are there in either case.

As Walker so pointedly and correctly notes in his Epilogue, textual study
can be limiting: the printed texts of these early plays do not provide
all the answers, or even necessarily correct ones. It is important to
consider the details of the surrounding milieu not, I would suggest, to
read interpretations into pieces but in order to tease out what is genuinely
present. The modern audience in that respect experiences in somewhat greater
degree the same problem experienced by the out-of-hall audience of the
plays' period--unfamiliarity with the references, the lack of a key to
unlock, as it were, the iconographic doors. The Epilogue also provides
a brief, useful overview of the argument; certainly these plays reveal
much about the political machinations of their day and they were, obviously,
also central to some of the major political debates of their time.

Appendices a) concerning the control and censorship of drama in print
and b) listing the printed great hall plays (1510-1580) conclude this
splendid volume. If there is a notable shortcoming at all, it is the lack
of a bibliography--the extensive notes throughout must serve, though even
there one might wish that the publisher (in addition to the place and
date of publication) had been specified. The text itself, documented as
it is, is thoroughly readable and constitutes, for the student of literature,
theatre studies, and history a significant and original contribution.

Responses to this piece intended for the
Readers' Forum may be sent to the Editor at EMLS@UAlberta.ca.